Stay Informed

Center for Marriage Policy

The Center for Marriage Policy was founded in part to promote the theory that marriage equality is a plot cooked up by feminists so they can marry their female friends and extract child support from their male lovers. But this isn’t the only dubious social theory the group promotes. In a series of Facebook posts this year, the Center has blamed various acts of violence – including the Newtown school shooting, the murder of a Massachusetts high school teacher by a student, and Virginia state Sen. Creigh Deeds’ son’s attempted murder-suicide – on liberal divorce laws.

In a post on Sunday about the recently-released investigative report on Adam Lanza’s Newtown shooting spree, the Center wrote, “The Lanza case emphasizes the tremendous importance of marriage”:

In a post late last month, the Center blamed the murder of the teacher in Massachusetts on no-fault divorce laws, which allow married couples to obtain a divorce without either member of the couple being accused of wrongdoing. (Such laws are on the books in all 50 states and have been credited with decreases in domestic abuse.)

Just a few days earlier, the Center was blaming Sen. Deeds’ “unnecessary” divorce for his son’s violent outburst.

Back in May, the Center for Marriage Policy provided a similar analysis of a case in which an Oregon boy was accused of plotting to blow up his school. “Look no further: the divorce revolution drives domestic violence, child violence, and uncontrollable social spending,” the group wrote. “Are you fed up with this living disaster yet?”

The group argued that the divorce theory negates the need for gun violence prevention laws. “The majority of gun violence begins with marriage-absence,” the group wrote. “Marriage policy IS the key to cutting all types of violence, reducing demand social spending, and balancing budgets.”

David Usher of the Center for Marriage Policy is out with a new column, “Our last chance to save traditional marriage,” lamenting that the Defense of Marriage Act wasn’t properly defended at the Supreme Court because it was “never argued that gay marriage is unequal and unconstitutional.”

Usher argues that if same-sex marriage is legal then women will marry other women and have children with men “by pretending they are using birth control when they are not.” “Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages,” Usher writes, adding that women will also turn to the state for welfare benefits. Good heterosexual couples will be left “economically-disadvantaged” because they will be taxed to support the lesbian couples’ Big Government goodies.

But that’s not all: Usher then explains that gay men will have it the worst of all as they will be tricked into having sex with lesbians through “reproductive entrapment,” fathering their kids, and then paying child support to support them: “Marriages between two men are destined to be the marital underclass. In most cases, these men will become un-consenting ‘fathers’ by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved” to lesbian unions.

“Men will be forced to labor for the economic benefit of marriages between women – marriages men have been ‘redlined’ out of – by the choice of two women who married with intention to have children by men outside the marriage,” Usher writes. “This approaches the definition of slavery – and perhaps sexual trafficking or bondage.”

The ridiculous argument continues, warning that “discrimination against men” will operate “similarly to pre-civil-rights racism.”

Since gay men and lesbian women will be having a bunch of kids, “schools will be aggressively promoting lifestyles that kill or disable children and infect innocent women and babies with HIV,” not to mention an increase in violent crime.

Oh, and also gay marriage will bring about the end of America: “To dismantle marriage – the most important equal rights institution framed by the Founding Fathers – is to dismantle the Constitution, freedom, and the United States of America.”

U.S. Supreme court declared DOMA unconstitutional because defenders of heterosexual marriage never argued that gay marriage is unequal and unconstitutional. The Left screamed "equality" in every court in the nation. We never responded on the merits, were unable to state harm, and suffered an entirely preventable loss.

…

Why heterosexual marriage is exclusively constitutional

Heterosexual marriage is the only constitutional form of marriage because it is the only possible arrangement that automatically confers equal social, economic, and parental rights to all married men and women regardless of one's ability to naturally bear a child. Same-sex marriage immediately bifurcates these rights, destroying equality between men and women.

…

Class 1: Mother-mother marriages: The class of marriages having most advantageous rights is marriages between two women. When two women marry, it is a three-way contract among two women and the government. Most women will bear children by men outside the marriage – often by pretending they are using birth control when they are not. Entrapped men become economically-conscripted third parties to these marriages, but get nothing in return.

This is a significant advantage compelling women who would otherwise become (or are) single mothers to choose to marry a woman instead of a man. They can combine incomes, double-up on tax-free child support and welfare benefits, decrease costs, and double the human resources available to raise children and run their household. They are sexually liberated with boyfriends often cohabiting with them to provide additional undeclared income and human resources without worrying about what happens when they break up with their boyfriends.

…

Class 2: Heterosexual marriages. The second class of marriages is traditional marriages between men and women. Children of these marriages are almost always borne of the marriage and supported by husband and wife without governmental involvement. In these marriages, men and women have natural parental and economic rights, standing in society, and equal "gender power" before the law. Traditional marriages will be economically-disadvantaged compared to mother-mother marriages because they cannot draw large incomes from the welfare state and they will be taxed to support other marriages. They are treated in discriminatory fashion having to subsidize Class-1 and perhaps Class-3 entitlements (including ObamaCare) in their taxes.

Class 3: Male-Male marriages. Marriages between two men are destined to be the marital underclass. In most cases, these men will become un-consenting "fathers" by reproductive entrapment. Men in male-male marriages who become fathers by deceptive means will be forced to pay child support to women in bi-maternal marriages, and become economically enslaved to Class-1 marriages. The taxpayers will be guarantors of child support collections for low-income fathers who cannot afford to pay (as occurs in the existing welfare state).

Same-sex marriage is a multi-dimensional violation of 14th Amendment protections against sex discrimination. The 5th Amendment protection for life, liberty, and property without due process of law is structurally violated in cases of reproductive deception by women, regardless of marital status of the men involved.

…

Harm: The harm of same-sex marriage is substantial. All the problems of marriage-absence will be imported into the institution of bi-maternal marriage. Children raised in father-absence have between 400% and 1800% higher rates of problems such as illegitimacy, suicide, ADHD, incarceration and are far less likely to finish high school or succeed in the work force. When men are structurally excluded from marriage, the problem of violent de-socialized males will compound over time.

…

Medical science has documented the fact that homosexual behavior is a great health and social risk to everyone. There is no evidence that gay marriage reduces the extremely high rates of promiscuity commonly practiced by homosexuals and bisexuals. The Supreme Court ruling guarantees that schools will be aggressively promoting lifestyles that kill or disable children and infect innocent women and babies with HIV.

…

Illegitimacy and non-marriage are informal activities not warranting the constitutional protections and affirmations of marriage. Same-sex marriage is not a substitute for, or equivalent to heterosexual marriage because of the documented costs it will impose on the nation, businesses, and the taxpayers. It would be unconstitutional to broadly empower the welfare state to affirmatively "buy out" the institution of heterosexual marriage in the name of "gay equality."

If same-sex marriage is forced on America, it is an irreversible change at law. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned us that illegitimacy would grow quickly and have profound adverse impact on marriage, budgets, crime, and the Nation. My prediction of harm is nothing more than a straight-line extension of Moynihan's prescient analysis, proven to be fully correct by fifty years of history. If legalized, economic advantage will still drive women's marital decisions, but many will choose to marry another woman (and the welfare state) instead of becoming a struggling single mother. Advantage alone will drive a much more aggressive and insidious welfare state that cannot be reigned in because same-sex marriage is a constitutionally-protected activity that by way of precedent cannot be withdrawn at a later date. This is far more dangerous than ObamaCare, abortion, capital punishment, or excessive gun regulations – which are reversible by legislatures and the courts.

…

Men will be forced to labor for the economic benefit of marriages between women – marriages men have been "redlined" out of – by the choice of two women who married with intention to have children by men outside the marriage. This approaches the definition of slavery – and perhaps sexual trafficking or bondage. This is one reason that the welfare state has been called a "plantation" by an increasingly large cohort of politicians and activists.

…

Progressives hope to establish an irreversible system of choice-based sex discrimination against men operating similarly to pre-civil-rights racism, when discrimination against blacks was commonplace with respect to property, political, and voting rights. Individuals cannot "choose" to red-line blacks out of the housing market. Individuals cannot "choose" an arrangement impressing blacks to support them with nothing in return. This is precisely what gay marriage will do to all men of all races.

Severability of economic rights and lack of class-action status: Many same-sex cases beyond United States v. Windsor involve unmarried same-sex cohabitants living in economic "civil unions." Windsor and these other non-class-action cases were carefully selected and framed to keep children and parental rights excised to ensure that welfare state and parental rights considerations could not poison the litigation. The recent decision in Windsor is a broadside evisceration of the economic function of the institution of marriage, and a propellant encouraging women to dump their husbands in favor of same-sex marriages. The lack of class-action scrutiny combined with the absence of review of child/parental rights and welfare-state impacts suggests these cases are too myopic and incomplete to warrant a Supreme Court finding justifying either review, much less broad application economically destroying heterosexual marriage in Supra.

…

The fundamental purpose of heterosexual marriage: Heterosexual marriage harnesses two very different sexes to form one human race working cooperatively to naturally build nations, economy, and raise children. It guarantees equal social, economic, parental, and political rights to all citizens regardless of sex. The Constitution does not support any idea that bifurcates and redirects the natural rights of men and women depending solely on the natural ability of a person to bear a child. To dismantle marriage – the most important equal rights institution framed by the Founding Fathers – is to dismantle the Constitution, freedom, and the United States of America.

After claiming to take an exit from anti-gay advocacy, Scott Lively now says that anti-gay activists aren’t working hard enough. In a WorldNetDaily column, the activist who urged Uganda to imprison gays who refuse sexual orientation conversion therapy and blames the Holocaust on gay people said that the anti-gay movement has been too nice and must now bring out “angry crowds with tar and feathers in hand” to intimidate officials who back “gay fascism bills,” or anti-discrimination measures. Lively offered to lecture about how gays are responsible for the Holocaust and advocate the “recruitment of children into a homosexual identity” in order to help turn an anti-gay “snowball” into an “avalanche.”

Now we know that when the leftists attempt to push a “gay fascism bill” in politically conservative areas, our response must be to create controversy to draw public attention to the bill so that the people wake up and realize there’s a problem. Throw out the old playbook of acting nice and trying to persuade the public officials through reason. They think they are smarter than you all anyhow and have already made up their minds. They need to see angry crowds with tar and feathers in hand coming to run them out of office! Indeed, the Mayor of Springfield complained to the media that he was extremely bothered by threats of recall by the citizens.

If you find out there’s a “gay fascism bill” coming to your conservative town and need help exposing it to the public, just give me a call and I’ll come to help. Invite me to give a speech on my book “The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party” or address the global threat of homosexuality – or to give a give a sermon or lecture on ANY aspect of the homosexual issue. When they hear I’m coming to town every left-wing fanatic for miles around will start wailing and gnashing their teeth, and normal people will start popping their heads up to see what’s going on. Once that snowball of public controversy starts down the hill it takes very little effort to keep it rolling till it smashes right through the doors of city hall like an avalanche.

Friends, I believe the worm has begun to turn and the backlash against the fascistic “gay” agenda has finally started. As Christians we need to steward this process and keep it civil and positive. Our goal is not merely to stop their agenda, it is to advance our own: a genuinely family-friendly society grounded in healthy biblical values. To that end, it is time for our side to begin showing the contrast in clear unequivocal terms. We need to expose every aspect of the homosexual lifestyle and agenda to public scrutiny and at the same time remind everyone that God’s plan for sex and marriage produces as much good and health as “sexual freedom” produces harm and disease.

Last week’s vindication by the University of Texas at Austin of the Mark Regnerus’ study exposing the dangers of “gay” parenting is both another sign of the worm’s turn and a tool for every pro-family advocate to use.

Likewise, the choice of the Center for Marriage Policy to come against “gay marriage” on the grounds of public health, talking again about the diseases associated with homosexual conduct, is a very smart move. They have declared September “Protect Marriage Month” and are circulating a flyer detailing the many health risks of homosexuality. We need to bring back public discussion of AIDS as a “gay” disease, pederasty as major subculture of male homosexuality, mental health problems and domestic violence as major problems associated with lesbianism, the increasing recruitment of children into a homosexual identity through experimentation with “gay” sex, etc. – all the truths we stopped telling because the other side screamed so loudly about them.

Now is the time to step out from the behind the defensive bulwark of “traditional marriage” in which our only argument is that “marriage is between a man and a woman.” It is time to start taking back some of the ground we have ceded to the other side in the face of their overwhelming public-relations superiority. Their marketing strategy to cast homosexuality as benign and even socially beneficial has finally hit the brick wall of reality. The phony facade is beginning to crack and crumble like an eggshell does when a baby chick is ready to be born.

Lively gladly cites the recent report of the far-right Center for Marriage Policy, which declared September “Protecting Marriage Month” and in a flyer [PDF] calls homosexuality a “sexual disorder” and “perversion.”

Corporations promoting the gay lifestyle do their employees and the Nation a great disservice. Those who truly care about ending the AIDS crisis, saving others and our children from death or disability must focus on policy encouraging treatment and counseling for those caught up in a promiscuous lifestyle.

The fact that promiscuity is “normal” to the gay lifestyle indicates that it likely reflects a sexual disorder. Most homosexuals also sleep with the opposite sex, possibly infecting innocent wives, husbands, and children with HIV and other serious or untreatable infections.

…

Sexual perversion is not a discovery of science. It is the work of the sexual liberation movement. Their political agenda depends on us believing that sexual promiscuity and risky behaviors are normal and somehow worthy of being elevated to the status of genuine marriage.

We disagree with the sexual revolution. Science has proven that homosexuality is a harmful behavior which is dangerous to others and our children.

By protecting Marriage and encouraging homosexuals to turn the corner to live healthy lives, we share love and life with everyone.

…

We do not give smokers or illegal drug users special rights. We must discourage homosexuality and encourage therapy to save lives and protect the rest of America.